coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Griže.
6.  On 12 March 1994 the applicant was bitten by a dog owned by M. D. and V. D.
7.  On 17 January 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against M. D. in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 3,400,000 Slovenian tolars (approximately 14,170 euros) for the injuries sustained.
On 24 August 1995 the applicant lodged a preliminary written submission in which she modified her claim so that it concerned also V. D.
On 20 June 1997 she made a request that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the six hearings scheduled between 26 February 1996 and 18 May 1998, only the first and the last were held, the remaining four were adjourned due to the absence of the defendant.
At the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 3 July 1998.
8.  On 8 July 1998 M. D. and V. D. appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).
On 28 October 1999 the court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
9.  In the re-examination proceedings, the applicant lodged, between 2 August 2000 and 10 March 2004, nine preliminary written submissions.
On 12 November 2001 she made a request that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the four hearings held between 13 September 2000 and 2 June 2004, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings, the court appointed three experts and carried out two additional hearings at the spot of the incident.
At the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 16 July 2004.
10.  On 22 July 2004 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).
On 20 October 2005 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 18 November 2005.
11.  On 2 December 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
The proceedings are still pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in Celje.
6.  On 11 June 1998 the applicant’s request for the approval of his medical treatment in a foreign country was rejected by the Slovenia Health Insurance Institute (“ZZZS”).
7.  On 21 July 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings against ZZZS in the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodiščev v Ljubljani) seeking reimbursement of the cost for the before mentioned medical treatment.
Between 22 June 2000 and 11 September 2001 the applicant lodged seven preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 1 March 1999 and 6 November 2001 he made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.
On 7 June 2000 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Ministry of Justice (Ministrstvo za pravosodje) because of delays in the proceedings.
Of the three hearings held between 12 July 2000 and 19 December 2001, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 18 March 2002.
8.  On 25 March 2002 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje Delovno in socialno sodišče). ZZZS cross-appealed.
On 5 March 2004 the court allowed in part the defendant’s appeal and accordingly changed the first instance court’s judgement and dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 31 May 2004.
9.  On 23 June 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 18 January 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the second-instance court for re-examination.
10. In the re-examination proceedings, on 3 February 2005, the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the applicant’s (previously rejected) appeal and in the respective part remitted the case to the first instance court for re-examination.
The Supreme Court’s decision and the Higher Labour and Social Court’s judgment were served on the applicant on 2 March 2005.
11. The proceedings are pending before the first-instance court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Celje.
6. In 1988 the applicant was granted an invalidity status after being injured in an accident at work. The Pension and Disability Insurance Community (“PDIC”) paid his invalidity pension, allegedly with some delays.
7.  On 30 March 1990 the applicant instituted proceedings against PDIC in the Court of Associated Labour of Pension and Disability Insurance (Sodišče združenega dela invalidskega in pokojninskega zavarovanja) seeking payment of interests which occurred due to the late payments of his invalidity pension.
After the first instance judgment had been quashed twice on appeal and remitted for reconsideration, on 12 October 1993 the Court of Associated Labour of Pension and Disability Insurance upheld the applicant’s claim in part.
On 2 November 1993 the applicant appealed.
On 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia.
On 22 September 1994, further to the applicant’s appeal, the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in social sodišče) quashed the first-instance decision again and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
8.  Between 23 January 1995 and 3 November 1998 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 23 October 1997 and 18 June 1998 he made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the two hearings held on 8 July 1998 and 10 December 1998, neither was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
At the last hearing, the (renamed) Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani) decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 4 March 1999.
9.  On 8 March 1999 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court.
On 5 February 2002 the applicant urged the court to decide on the appeal.
On 1 March 2002 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 12 March 2002.
10.  On 21 March 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 6 May 2003 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 26 May 2003.
11. On 23 May 2003 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court requested the applicant to pay court fees. Subsequently, the applicant paid only part of the fees. As regards the remaining part, he lodged an objection stating that the request was time barred.
On 11 June 2003 the court issued a decision ordering the applicant to pay the remainder of the court fees and rejected his objection.
On 16 June 2003 the applicant appealed.
On 20 August 2004 the Higher Labour and Social Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. That decision was served on the applicant on 1 September 2004.
5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Braslovče.
6.  On 2 February 1997 the applicant was bitten by a dog owned by S.H..
7.  On 24 April 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against S.H. in the Žalec Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Žalcu) seeking damages in the amount of 705,000 Slovenian tolars (approximately 2,940 euros) for the injuries sustained.
On 21 July 1997 the applicant lodged a preliminary written submission.
Of the four hearings held between 10 May 1999 and 27 September 1999, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
At the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written interim judgment. It appears that the judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 1 December 1999.
8.  On 16 December 1999 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). S.H. cross-appealed.
On 20 September 2000 the court allowed both appeals and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
9.  Between 10 January and 26 June 2001 the applicant lodged ten preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence with the Žalec Local Court.
Of the seven hearings held between 6 December 2000 and 12 July 2001, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
At the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written interim judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 24 October 2001.
10.  On 5 November 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). On 26 November 2001 he also appealed against the first-instance decision of 15 November 2001 concerning costs of proceedings.
On 10 October 2002 the court allowed the applicant’s appeals and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination by a new judge.
The decision was served on the applicant on 7 November 2002.
11. The applicant in the re-examination proceedings lodged five written submissions and/or adduced evidence between 27 June 2003 and 29 January 2004.
Of the two hearings held on 30 June 2003 and 13 February 2004, neither was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
On 4 September 2003 the court appointed a medical expert M.V. Since the applicant objected to this appointment, the court, on 14 October 2003, appointed another medical expert.
At the last hearing the Žalec Local Court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 16 March 2004.
12.  On 19 March 2004 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). S.H. cross-appealed.
On 9 March 2005 the court dismissed both appeals, but changed the part of the first –instance judgment concerning legal costs.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 23 March 2005.
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Celje.
6.  On 12 February 1997 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 19 September 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 1,800,000 tolars (approximately 7,500 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 5 February 1998 and 4 December 1999 the applicant made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Between 24 March 2000 and 6 June 2001 he lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Of the three hearings held between 17 April 2000 and 4 July 2001 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 3 September 2001.
8.  On 17 September 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.
On 20 November 2002 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and dismissed ZT’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 9 December 2002.
9.  On 16 December 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) and sought a recusal of one of the judges.
On 28 March 2003 the president of the court rejected the applicant’s request to recuse one judge.
On 19 February 2004 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part increased the damages awarded and remanded the case to the Celje Higher Court for re-examination of the judgment in the part rejecting the applicant’s claims.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 10 May 2005.
10.  On 30 March 2005 the Celje Higher Court, upon re-examination, upheld the applicant’s appeal and remanded the case back to the first-instance court for a re-examination of the part rejecting the applicant’s claims.
The decision was served on the applicant on 8 May 2005.
11.  On 3 June 2005 the applicant requested the first-instance court that a day be set for a hearing.
On 23 June 2005 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.
On 6 July 2005 the court held a hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment.
The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 3 November 2005.
12.  On 7 November 2005 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.
The proceedings are still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Verpelét.
5.  On 21 May 1991 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and her accomplices on charges of robbery and other offences. She was in detention on remand from 21 May 1991 until 19 May 1992.
6.  Meanwhile, on 21 January 1992 a bill of indictment was preferred. Between 15 May 1992 and 1 October 1996, several hearings took place before the Pest Central District Court. On that last date the proceedings were suspended since some of the defendants could not be summoned.
7.  On 5 March 2002 an arrest warrant was issued against the applicant and another defendant. On 29 April 2002 the applicant was arrested but released the next day.
8.  On 6 May 2002 the proceedings were partially discontinued insofar as they concerned certain time-barred offences.
9.  After a hearing on 21 January 2003, on 11 April 2003 the District Court sentenced the applicant to one year’s imprisonment, suspended for a year. In the absence of appeals, this judgment became final on 14 April and was served on 7 August 2003.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Budapest.
5.  The applicant was employed by a construction co-operative; his duty was to disinfect pieces of wood with chemicals. On account of various illnesses which the applicant alleged were caused by this activity, he suffered a 40% disability. In September 1989 he instituted proceedings in the Budapest Labour Court. He claimed that his diseases had been caused by the chemicals and that his former employer should pay him compensation. On 20 October 1990 the Labour Court dismissed the action. This judgment was quashed by the Budapest Regional Court on 8 January 1992. The case was remitted to the first instance court.
6.  In the resumed proceedings, the respondent employer was replaced by its successor. Between 13 October 1992 and 22 February 1994, the Labour Court held five hearings and obtained an opinion from the Institute of Forensic Medicine. On that date it delivered a judgment and dismissed the applicant’s action. On 9 September 1994 the applicant appealed.
7.  After a hearing on 6 September 1995, on 28 February 1996 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
8.  Following the applicant’s successful request of 13 August 1996 to have his case re-opened, the Labour Court held hearings on 5 December 1996, and 24 April and 5 June 1997. By 28 September 1998 the opinions of further two experts were obtained. Another hearing was held on 31 March 1999.
9.  On 8 September 1999 the Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s action, holding that the respondent was not liable for the applicant’s sickness.
10.  On 30 March 2000 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 13 October 2000 the applicant filed a petition for review. On 16 January 2001 the Supreme Court appointed a legal-aid lawyer for him. On 3 April it scheduled a hearing for 14 November 2001.
11.  On 6 April 2001 the liquidator of the successor to the applicant’s former employer informed the Supreme Court that the respondent had been liquidated on 1 June and deleted from the company register on 7 October 2000. On 10 May 2001 the Supreme Court interrupted the proceedings until the respondent’s successor joined the proceedings.
12.  On 18 September 2001 the applicant requested that the liquidator be allowed to join the proceedings as the defendant’s successor.
13.  On 7 November 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request, observing that the liquidator was not the successor.
14.  In separate proceedings, on 7 January 2002 the applicant requested that the proceedings resulting in the defendant’s liquidation be re-opened, since he had never been informed of them. On 1 February 2002 the Regional Court’s Economic Collegium dismissed this request. On 28 April 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal since the request was incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and Act no. XLIX of 1991 (“the Insolvency Act”). In its reasoning, the Supreme Court made reference to the fact that, under sections 20 and 82(g) of Act no. CXLI of 2000 on New Co-operatives, the respondent had ceased to exist ipso iure without a successor (section 1(3) of the Insolvency Act).
5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and resided in Kazincbarcika. He died in March 2004.
6.  On 2 September 1994 the applicant brought an action in the Miskolc Labour Court against his former employer, a joint-stock company. He requested the court to hold that his employment contract had been terminated unlawfully, that he should be reinstated and that the agreement with the employer company to buy his shares from him be annulled.
7.  After a hearing on 30 November 1994, on 15 February 1995 the Labour Court discontinued the proceedings partly because the applicant’s action had been submitted outside the statutory time-limit, and partly because it had no competence in the case.
8.  On 11 May 1995 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court quashed part of the first-instance decision and appointed the Kazincbarcika District Court to deal with the applicant’s civil law claim.
9.  On 16 February 1996 the Supreme Court accepted the applicant’s petition for review and remitted the labour law aspects of the case to the Labour Court.
10.  Meanwhile, on 25 April 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings, seeking the payment of damages, additional wages and other benefits. After a hearing on 6 December 1995, on 28 March 1996 the Labour Court ordered that this action be joined to the original proceedings which were to be resumed pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision.
11.  After hearings on 17 May and 7 June 1996, on 3 July 1996 the Labour Court gave a partial judgment. It stated that the company had terminated the applicant’s employment unlawfully and ordered it to reinstate him.
12.  On appeal, on 28 November 1996 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance partial judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim concerning the termination of his employment.
13.  In the proceedings concerning the remainder of the case, on 8 April, 4 September and 2 November 1997, the Labour Court held hearings. On 16 December 1997 it accepted part of the applicant’s claims for additional wages and outstanding benefits, but dismissed the remainder.
14.  On appeal, on 2 April 1998 the Regional Court considered the first-instance judgment to be a partial decision and confirmed its contents. It held that the Labour Court had failed to examine some of the applicant’s claims, and that in this respect the proceedings were to be continued.
15.  In the resumed first-instance proceedings, on 15 June 1998 the Labour Court transferred part of the applicant’s claims to the competent Kazincbarcika District Court. After a hearing on 13 January 1999, on 3 February 1999 it dismissed the applicant’s action.
16.  On 14 December 2000 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
17.  On 18 April 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Veszprém.
5.  On 7 November 1994 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, the president of a savings bank, and other defendants. On 22 March 1995 the Veszprém County Police Department heard the applicant as a suspect and explained to him that an investigation was being conducted against him since he was accused of having committed fraud when granting credit to a limited company, a conduct punishable under section 297/A of the Criminal Code.
6.  In February 1997 the investigation was closed.
7.  On 16 October 2000 the Veszprém Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant charging him with aggravated fraud committed as an accomplice, a conduct punishable under section 318 §§ 1 and 6(a) of the Criminal Code.
8.  At the hearing of 24 January 2002 a defendant and some representatives failed to appear. The Veszprém District Court heard the applicant, who stated that he did not want to propose any evidence. The case was adjourned.
9.  Hearings took place on 28 May, 15 October 2002 and 3 March 2003. On 28 May 2002 the District Court rejected the applicant’s motion for bias.
10.  On 11 September 2003 the District Court acquitted the applicant.
11.  On 7 June 2004 the Veszprém County Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment concerning the applicant and remitted this part of the case to the District Court.
12.  On 8 October 2004 the Budapest Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s motion for bias, filed against all the judges in Veszprém County.
13.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court held hearings on 24 March and 12 April 2005. On that date it acquitted the applicant in the absence of any evidence proving him guilty.
14.  Both the applicant and the prosecutor appealed. However, on 25 May 2005 the prosecution withdrew its appeal.
15.  On 26 September 2005 the Regional Court upheld the applicant’s acquittal. In line with the applicant’s appeal, it found that the incriminated conduct did not constitute a criminal offence.
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Makó.
5.  On 8 October 1993 the applicant’s ex-wife brought an action in trespass against him in the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court, in the context of a dispute concerning the use of the divorced couple’s flat.
6.  On 21 December 1993 and 5 April 1994 this court held hearings.
7.  On 28 February 1996 the court instructed the plaintiff to submit better particulars of her claims.
8.  On 19 March 1997 the case was transferred to the Makó District Court for reasons of competence. On 9 and 23 September 1997 the court held hearings. After a short stay of the proceedings, a further hearing was held on 16 December 1997, which the plaintiff did not attend. After another stay, hearings took place on 5 May and 25 June 1998. On 7 July 1998 the plaintiff submitted additional particulars of her claims.
9.  The court held hearings on 29 September, 22 October 1998, 15 July, 16 and 23 September 1999. On that day the court gave judgment, partly finding for the plaintiff. It ordered the applicant to pay compensation to the plaintiff in the amount of 67,592 Hungarian forints (HUF) plus accrued interest. The court held that the subject matter of the case was the settlement of scores concerning the division of the matrimonial property.
10.  On appeal, on 26 January 2000 the Csongrád County Regional Court upheld this decision.
11.  On 31 May 2000 the Supreme Court rejected as inadmissible the applicant’s petition for review, without examining it on the merits, since the disputed amount fell below the statutory threshold of HUF 500,000, under which no review lay against second-instance decisions.